This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Those early reports raised issues that he might not, in fact, have diplomatic status. I'm not sure where things stand on that issue.

If he has diplomatic status, he should have a diplomatic passport. If so, Pakistan should expel him or ask the U.S. to waive his immunity. The latter request would all but certainly be denied, so he would be expelled. However, if no diplomatic passport exists, then Pakistan is within its rights to prosecute him.

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Those early reports raised issues that he might not, in fact, have diplomatic status. I'm not sure where things stand on that issue.

If he has diplomatic status, he should have a diplomatic passport. If so, Pakistan should expel him or ask the U.S. to waive his immunity. The latter request would all but certainly be denied, so he would be expelled. However, if no diplomatic passport exists, then Pakistan is within its rights to prosecute him.

What of the Rev's statement that even if he does have dip.imm., that does not cover the crime of murder, that his immunity would not cover this?

"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Originally Posted by Andalublue

What of the Rev's statement that even if he does have dip.imm., that does not cover the crime of murder, that his immunity would not cover this?

That's incorrect.

Under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, a person with diplomatic immunity is exempt from all criminal jurisdiction of the "receiving state." The U.S. would have to waive diplomatic immunity if the person were to be prosecuted by the foreign country in which he/she worked in his/her diplomatic capacity.

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

That's incorrect.

Under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, a person with diplomatic immunity is exempt from all criminal jurisdiction of the "receiving state." The U.S. would have to waive diplomatic immunity if the person were to be prosecuted by the foreign country in which he/she worked in his/her diplomatic capacity.

Oh, okay. That seems clear. So how would the US go about applying for Habeas Corpus in this case, given that he seems to be in Pakistani custody? And do you know whether they are doing that?

"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Oh, okay. That seems clear. So how would the US go about applying for Habeas Corpus in this case, given that he seems to be in Pakistani custody? And do you know whether they are doing that?

I do not know what the U.S. is doing behind the scenes to try to resolve the issue. However, if Mr. Davis has diplomatic immunity (there is some uncertainty concerning his status), the U.S. could take the matter to the International Court of Justice, if Pakistan fails to adhere to its obligations under the Vienna Convention. Outside of that, the U.S. could seek to apply pressure e.g., reducing/eliminating aid, but there would also be adverse consequences to that move i.e., Pakistan could terminate the ability of the U.S. to use Pakistan's territory to provide supplies to its forces in Afghanistan, could suspend intelligence cooperation, etc. Some in the U.S. government appear to be making threats along the line of reduced or suspended aid, etc.

My guess is that should the U.S. guarantee that the shooting would be examined within the U.S. legal system with Pakistan's being permitted to supply evidence/argue its case/have full access to the proceedings, that could help resolve the dispute without a resort to the ICJ, much less policy pressure that could also damage U.S. interests. Nevertheless, if he has diplomatic immunity, Pakistan is obligated to refrain from prosecuting him, though it can expel him.

If, however, Mr. Davis actually lacks diplomatic immunity, Pakistan is within its rights to prosecute him there and in accordance with its own laws. Under such circumstances, it would also be within its rights to apply its own criminal penalties if he is convicted.

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Either he's a spy and not a very good one, given that he blew his cover and got caught.

Or he's a man with a screw loose that just committed murder for reasons yet unknown.

Either way, he deserves to be charged according to Pakistani law and dealt with there.

Two points:

1. We don't know if he actually committed "murder." Pakistan's police allege that he used unncessary force that led to the deaths of the two individuals. Mr. Davis has made the alibi that he acted in self-defense believing he was about to be robbed. Right now all one has is the Pakistan police's allegation and Mr. Davis' alibi. Nothing has been proved and, as far as I know, no concrete evidence has been made available to the public.

2. If Mr. Davis has diplomatic immunity, he cannot legally be charged by Pakistan. Only if he lacks such status can he be charged and prosecuted by Pakistan. Otherwise, Pakistan would be in violation of its obligations under the Vienna Convention.

Re: US Man Shot Pakistan Pair "In Cold Blood"

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

I do not know what the U.S. is doing behind the scenes to try to resolve the issue. However, if Mr. Davis has diplomatic immunity (there is some uncertainty concerning his status), the U.S. could take the matter to the International Court of Justice, if Pakistan fails to adhere to its obligations under the Vienna Convention. Outside of that, the U.S. could seek to apply pressure e.g., reducing/eliminating aid, but there would also be adverse consequences to that move i.e., Pakistan could terminate the ability of the U.S. to use Pakistan's territory to provide supplies to its forces in Afghanistan, could suspend intelligence cooperation, etc. Some in the U.S. government appear to be making threats along the line of reduced or suspended aid, etc.

My guess is that should the U.S. guarantee that the shooting would be examined within the U.S. legal system with Pakistan's being permitted to supply evidence/argue its case/have full access to the proceedings, that could help resolve the dispute without a resort to the ICJ, much less policy pressure that could also damage U.S. interests. Nevertheless, if he has diplomatic immunity, Pakistan is obligated to refrain from prosecuting him, though it can expel him.

If, however, Mr. Davis actually lacks diplomatic immunity, Pakistan is within its rights to prosecute him there and in accordance with its own laws. Under such circumstances, it would also be within its rights to apply its own criminal penalties if he is convicted.

Many thanks, Don. Very helpful post.

"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn